Since it looks as though Kerry is the choice for the democrats, let's look ahead to the debates with Kerry and Bush. Ill give a statement by one of the candidates and you give what you think the response should be from you favorite candidate. Responses should be brief and professional just as though your candidate said them in a national debate. Let's start with a Bush statement: Bush: "If my opponent had decided the policy of what action America should take in Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power instead of in custody."
Bush won't dare say that because it would give Kerry the chance to say something like "But we'd have captured OBL, who actually committed an act of terrorism against us" or "So when are you going to invade Myanmar, North Korea, and a dozen other countries around the globe?". And then Bush goes into either his 'befuddled chimp' or 'deer in headlights' looks. Cut to commercial.
Re: Re: Re: Your chance for debate And Bush has already responded to a question that Russert asked him, that was similar the theoretical response, by pointing out that every situation is different, and he felt that we had "run the string out" on Iraq, while there is still plenty of room for diplomacy in those other countries. If I were Bush and Kerry actually responded that way, I would ask Kerry to explain why he feels that our approach to every foreign country has to be exactly the same.
Re: Re: Your chance for debate Kerry is lucky that he hasn't got JoePak giving him advice, those retorts are lame. If JoePak debated dubya, dubya would make JoePak look like a chimp in a New York minute. Bluffing that you know where OBL is and can go get him, that would blow up in your face like the Dean yell. As would daring him to invade North Korea.
"And there would be 700 US soldiers still alive, and 4500 soldiers still in one piece. We wouldn't have spent $210B in a time of massive deficits. We wouldn't have pulled half of our special ops troops out of Afghanistan, where they were hunting actual terrorists. We wouldn't have been subjected to the arrests of Scooter Libby and ???. We wouldn't have undermined the trust of both the American people and all world leaders in the competence of our intel professionals. And maybe, just maybe, we would have had a president who worried a bit more about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost over the term of your failed presidency, Mr. Bush."
Re: Re: Re: Your chance for debate Still bitter that you got your ass kicked in the DP debate, I see. You may continue to deliberately miss the point of either retort if you want, but most people won't. Anyway, my post was just a pithier version of superdave's. The idea is to point out that: a) Bush's war is a counterproductive drain on resources that should have been used to make us safer by fighting terrorism and b) the war in Iraq wasn't really about helping the poor Iraqi people because if Bush wants to use ridding the world of murderous dictators as his justification for the war, he's been sleeping on the job as there are still plenty of them out there. And unless Bush has been specifically prepped by his pappy's men with a particular response and Kerry is not allowed to press him, he won't be allowed to get away with blatant ducks and dodges like he was by Russert. If Kerry wanted to really go after Bush, he'd ask: So, where are the WMDs you claimed you knew the exact locations of? Were you lying when you said you had exact evidence of where they are or are you simply amateurshly incompetent? Which is it? And if you claim to be so incompetent that you were fooled by the CIA, why haven't you fired anyone yet? Where is the accountability?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your chance for debate Man, it's feast or famine with this guy. This time it's the chattering chimp. Superdave did it in one try pretty well. Kerry will, too, he's slick. But if dubya debated Joepak, we'd all sign up to repeal the 22nd amendment, dubya would look like Abe Lincoln.